Todd Lakey — Referred to as the chairman to whom the gavel is returned.
Todd Lakey — Senator Lakey is addressed repeatedly as chair while the discussion focuses on the refugee resettlement audit and related data issues. The exchange covers refugee settlement data collection, the number of refugees involved, and the sponsor’s explanation of the bill’s purpose and rationale.
Todd Lakey — The sheriff concludes his remarks by addressing the chair, corrects his form of address from "Mr. Chair" to "Mr. Chairman," and then transitions into the question-and-answer portion of the hearing.
Todd Lakey — Todd Lakey is addressed throughout a continuous committee discussion as Mr. Chairman/Mr. Chair while members ask procedural and substantive questions about the bill. The exchange covers where the report would be recorded and published, whether the bill could later be amended to remove 'including' language, and broader remarks about transparency and whether the bill had been run by affected entities before proceeding to a vote.
Brandon Shippy — Chair Lakey turns the gavel over to Vice Chair Brandon Shippy to run the meeting, and the speaker then addresses him as vice chair in acknowledgment.
Brandon Shippy — During this exchange, the witness repeatedly addresses Senator Brandon Shippy, whose name is mis-transcribed in several variants ('Senator Shippee,' 'Senator Shippey,' and 'Senator Shippew'). The mentions all occur in the same discussion and reflect the same ongoing response to the senator.
Brandon Shippy — Presided over the vote and then handed the gavel back to Senator Lakey.
Brandon Shippy — Begins questioning Senator Anthony about the bill's immigration-status provisions.
Brandon Shippy — Asks Senator Anthony to walk through the bill's language on immigration status and arrested individuals.
Brandon Shippy — Asked for an explanation of what 'detection' means in the bill and how it applies.
Todd Lakey — Todd Lakey presents and explains the bill, describing how it would apply to civil enforcement situations where no existing penalty mechanism exists, not to criminal conduct or the judicial branch. He answers questions about how the process works, emphasizing multiple safeguards: local review, Attorney General screening, notice and opportunity to cure, and ultimate court determination. He also explains that willful violations could lead to ineligibility to serve for up to five years, but only after layered review intended to prevent weaponization or frivolous complaints. Lakey further justifies limiting referral authority to certain high-level officials such as legislative leaders, the governor, and county commission chairs, while noting that citizens are still able to raise concerns and participate in the process.
Todd Lakey — Todd Lakey closed the bill by defending it on separation-of-powers grounds, arguing that local control does not excuse violations of law. He said the Attorney General enforces the law and the courts serve as the backstop, then explained that county commissioners are the appropriate party because of their broader responsibilities, while deputy prosecutors can still seek assistance from the Attorney General. He concluded by asking the committee to send House Bill 896 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Brandon Shippy — Was addressed in the sponsor's explanation of the statute's scope.
Brandon Shippy — Was addressed in the sponsor's explanation of the statute's scope.
Brandon Shippy — Was addressed in the sponsor's explanation of the statute's scope.
Brandon Shippy — Was addressed by the speaker while asking about the bill's definition of detection.
Brandon Shippy — Was addressed in the explanation of how the code applies to arrests.
Brandon Shippy — Continued pressing whether 'detection' alone triggers the statute.
Brandon Shippy — Questioned how immigration status could be verified during detection-only encounters.
Brandon Shippy — Asked whether verification would simply be by asking the person or only apply in certain circumstances.
Brandon Shippy — Was addressed in the sponsor's response about the scope of the definition.
Brandon Shippy — Was addressed again as the sponsor explained the statute's scope.
Brandon Shippy — Was reassured that detective work alone would not trigger verification requirements.
Brandon Shippy — Raised concern about whether the bill tracks where refugees live through housing-unit data.
Brandon Shippy — Was being answered regarding the housing-units question.
Brandon Shippy — Returned to the criminal-justice verification language and Section 18-908.
Brandon Shippy — Cited Section 18-908 and described its arrest-booking foreign-national verification process.
Brandon Shippy — Questioned what the bill adds to existing code and whether 'detection' alone triggers the requirement.
Brandon Shippy — Argued that the bill's wording may require verification during detection alone and could go beyond existing code.
Brandon Shippy — The transcript appears to refer to Senator Shippy when acknowledging the next questioner; likely a mis-transcription of Vice Chair Brandon Shippy.
Brandon Shippy — Senator Shippy was called on and then questioned the bill’s reporting language regarding counts of illegal aliens who are investigated, apprehended, detained, and transferred. He asked whether these categories were being treated as part of the same arrest-related reporting framework and who would be responsible for determining whether local law enforcement agencies were properly reporting the required statistics.
Brandon Shippy — Senator Brandon Shippy was recorded as voting in opposition or requesting to be recorded, with the transcript showing a minor spelling variation of his name ('Shippey'/'Shippee').
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow is recognized to ask a question.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow asks whether an active court case would make the legislation improper under Mason's Manual.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow is directly addressed in the response.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked for an example of the prohibition language in Section 1.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked for an example of what the prohibition language covers.
Melissa Wintrow — Followed up on the flag law example and questioned whether Boise City complied with the law.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked whether there are other examples or problems the bill is intended to address.
Melissa Wintrow — Closed her question after the Boise flag discussion.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked whether the bill applies to criminal activity or civil actions.
Melissa Wintrow — Continued questioning the scope of the bill and whether it applies only where no enforcement mechanism already exists.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked whether the legislative and judicial branches are exempt from the statute.
Melissa Wintrow — Raised concerns that the bill could be weaponized against political opponents or others.
Melissa Wintrow — Continued pressing on concerns about weaponization of the bill.
Melissa Wintrow — Acknowledged Lakey's response and continued the discussion.
Melissa Wintrow — Questioned why the pro tem, speaker, and other listed officials are the ones making referrals and noted the process is substantial.
Melissa Wintrow — Addressed as the senator asking the question.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Melissa Wintrow thanked the witness for testifying and encouraged him to keep speaking up. She then questioned Mr. Wheatley about concerns raised by Mr. Hingsberger regarding state involvement in local issues, asking for his reaction and the city’s perspective. Wintrow followed up by expressing concern that the bill’s disqualification provision in section 7-1707 may be unconstitutional and asked for the city’s view. She then continued by asking for examples of how the bill could be weaponized, what conflicts had been seen at the city and county level, and what amendments might be needed.
Melissa Wintrow — Supports concerns about the bill and highlights the issue of elites investigating elites.